Most Ghanaian political actors appear to enjoy the ping-pong of power showmanship than power utilization for public good and service to humanity. Immediate, short-term and often ephemeral goals occupy our attention.History has consistently taught us that it is unsustainable and condemnable to short-live glories, but we heed not the lessons. We come and go (in executive power display) to the detriment of Ghana without learning – cry my beloved homeland.While we hold the position that NO ONE is above accountability, we also believe that true accountability follows the path of righteous intentions mounted on the back of the ‘oxygen of publicity’ without sacrificing the quietness of diligence and calm-firmness.Hastening without guidance or caution has often led to chaotic rush with regrettable ends. How long can we continue in this? Since the establishment of the Supreme Court in 1876, exempting 1963 removal of CJ Arku Korsah, we have always protected the CJ or judiciary in general from direct executive interference.In Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, however, the executive has been permitted a limited but sacred and solemn duty which is meant, or supposed to be performed without theatre, grandstanding or choking any judge into irreparable damage of his or her reputation.We have since last year witnessed a consistent wage of war against a sitting CJ, premeditated politically and now on the altar of judicial sanction. It may appear uncertain how it will end, but one thing is certain and clear, NO Executive entry into the judiciary has gone unnoticed or ever forgotten by Ghanaians.In the words of former National Security and Intelligence capo, K. B. Quantson, sympathetic to Nkrumah notwithstanding, as he wrote on the 1963 removal of Sir Arku Korsah, CJ’s removal, inter alia at page 9 of his book on Ghana National Security – The Dilemma:”Whatever it was, the direct intervention of the Executive in the Judiciary created its own security problems. Because significant sections of the Bar and Bench plus significant sections of the public were not at all amused by the display of political muscle by the President in the judicial process. Many regarded that as the crucifixion of due process for political expediency.”